Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

Whether a = trial=20 court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a question of = law,=20 which we review de novo. Am. Type Culture = Collection, Inc.=20 v. Coleman, 83 S.W.3d 801, 805B06 (Tex.=20 2002). If the trial court makes findings of fact, they are = binding=20 on the appellate court unless challenged on appeal. = El Puerto De = Liverpool, S.A. De=20 C.V. v. Servi Mundo Llantero S.A. De C.V., 82 S.W.3d 622, 628 = (Tex.=20 App.CCorpus Christi 2002, = pet.=20 dism=3Dd w.o.j.). = In=20 this case, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions = of law=20 which are part of the appellate record. However, the facts = relevant=20 to our analysis are uncontested. Accordingly, we conduct a = de=20 novo review of the trial court=3Ds order=20 granting appellee=3Ds special=20 appearance. See Am. Type Culture, 83 S.W.3d at = 805B06. =20

2. =20 Analysis

Chapter=20 36 of the Code is Texas=3Ds=20 version of the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgment Recognition = Act=20 (AUniform=20 Act@). =20 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. = '=20 36.003. Research reveals no Texas case addressing whether a = trial=20 court in a Uniform Act proceeding must exercise in personam = jurisdiction=20 over the judgment debtor in order to recognize and enforce a=20 foreign-country judgment. However, courts in other states = have held=20 that, although a judgment debtor may contest recognition by = arguing that=20 the foreign-country court lacked personal jurisdiction over = the=20 judgment debtor^{^[3]},=20 the judgment debtor may not assert that the court of the state in = which=20 the judgment is filed does not have in personam jurisdiction over = the=20 judgment debtor. See Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Silver Star = Co.,=20 202 F.Supp.2d 905, 910 (N.D.Iowa 2002) (holding that a party = seeking the=20 recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment under = Iowa=3Ds=20 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act is not required to = establish a basis for exercise of personal jurisdiction over the = judgment=20 debtor); Lenchyshyn v. Pelko Elec., Inc., 281 A.D.2d 42,=20 46B48=20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001) (holding, under New York=3Ds=20 version of the Uniform Act, that judgment debtor may not assert = that the=20 American court lacks in personam jurisdiction over the judgment=20 debtor). Furthermore, the Texas statue itself contains no=20 requirement of personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor in=20 Texas. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. = '=20 36.044(g) (stating that in a Chapter 36 proceeding, the court = Amay=20 not, under any circumstances, review the foreign country judgment = in=20 relation to any matter not specified in Section 36.005"); = id.=20 '=20 36.005 (listing bases for nonrecognition of foreign-country = judgment but=20 not listing lack of in personam jurisdiction over judgment debtor = by Texas=20 court in which the judgment was filed).

Additionally,=20 the United States Constitution does not require in personam = jurisdiction=20 over the judgment debtor in the state in which a foreign judgment = is=20 filed. In Shaffer v. Heitner, the Supreme Court = stated in a=20 footnote that once a court with jurisdiction over the subject = matter and=20 the parties determines that one person is a debtor to another, = there=20 should be no due process problem in the judgment = creditor=3Ds=20 realizing upon the property of the judgment debtor in another = state in=20 which the debtor has property but is not subject to in personam=20 jurisdiction. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 210 = n.36, 97=20 S. Ct. 2569, 2583 n.36, 53 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1997). While we = recognize=20 the Shaffer footnote concerns the recognition of = enforcement of=20 sister state judgments, we determine the same principle applies to = the=20 recognition and enforcement of foreign country = money-judgments. =20 See Lenchyshyn, 281 A.D.2d at 48. =